Next, I will be addressing Sola Scriptura according to the Early Church which, by the way, did not hold to sola scriptura. So, in this post, I will be addressing the views of the Early Church. This is important because Jesus, being the good shepherd, would not leave his flock (the church) with out a shepherd/s as a bulwark against false teaching (See Ephesians 2 and 1 Timothy 3:14-16) and we know that the apostles appointed teachers, and overseers in every city, think of Timothy and Titus (see Titus 1:5 for example) this ultimately gets into a topic I will address in another post but, for now, I think this is all important in understanding why the views of the Early Church on tradition is important, for we have a faith that is handed down and Scripture was not canonized until a few hundred years after the advent of the Church. (You can research this on your own, and check out Athanasius' letter on the subject) - http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html
//Well, according to William A. Webster, Pastor of Grace Bible Church in Battle Ground Washington,”
The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of Sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age. Initially, the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible. Consequently, the Scriptures are materially sufficient and are by their very nature, as being inspired by God, the ultimate authority for the church. This means that there is no portion of that revelation which has been preserved in the form of oral tradition independent of Scripture. We do not possess any oral teaching of an Apostle today. Only Scripture therefore records for us the apostolic teaching and the final revelation of God." Further, here are some quotes from Ecfs".
"When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered using written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth;" - St.
Irenaeus. So, we see that this saint at the least taught Sola scriptura, see he contradicts the heretics by use of scripture. Meanwhile, the heretics try to argue a sacred tradition that is passed orally as opposed to written down, this would also contradict your understanding of some of the above scriptures you quoted." //
Hmm…that would almost be convincing if you had not butchered that quote from it's proper context. Here's the rest of what you are missing from St. Irenaeus."
2.2." But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsullied, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition." Well there we go tradition that originates with the apostles, and separate from scripture, leaving you undable to say the tradition is scripture, so no the concept of tradition did not originate with gnostics, Manicheans, or another sect.
//"Well, I know of other Ecf's that taught sola scriptura. It is none other than Gregory of Nyssa.”
"Gregory of Nyssa also enunciated this principle. He stated: The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.7" again from William A. Webster, Pastor of Grace Bible church in Battle Ground Washington //
I love that you are looking at what the early church taught that is really, really cool however 1. Do you know that Nyssa also said "the unique generation of the Son, he explained that it was enough that 'we have the tradition descending to us from the fathers, like an inheritance transmitted from the Apostles along the line of holy persons who succeeded them.' And he also said.”
Let our author, then, show this to begin with, that it is in vain that the Church has believed that the Only-begotten Son truly exists, not adopted by a Father falsely so called, but existing according to nature, by generation from Him Who is, not alienated from the essence of Him that begat Him. But so long as his primary proposition remains unproved, it is idle to dwell on those which are secondary. And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our fathers, handed on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them. They, on the other hand, who change their doctrines to this novelty, would need the support of arguments in abundance, if they were about to bring over to their views, not men light as dust, and unstable, but men of weight and steadiness: but so long as their statement is advanced without being established, and without being proved, who is so foolish and so brutish as to account the teaching of the evangelists and apostles, and of those who have successively shone like lights in the churches, of less force than this undemonstrated nonsense?"
And further, he said "Instead, the sheep stray from nourishing pastures, that is, from the traditions of the fathers, lodge outside the fold, and are dispersed throughout alien pastures. When the fruit of such a teaching brings about this situation, the form of a wolf now hiding under a sheep's skin will show itself.
Let us now examine the teachings of Apollinarius of Syria, to see whether they increase or decrease the flock, gather the dispersed or scatter those who have been gathered, and whether or not they support or manifest hostility towards the teachings of the fathers. . . For who does not know that God appeared to us in the flesh? According to pious tradition, he is incorporeal, invisible, incomposite, both was and is boundless and uncircumscribed, is present everywhere, penetrates all creation and has manifested himself in our human condition."
